I have been having a lot of trouble understanding the Church's position on homosexuality, how we prohibit marriage or sexual relations between them. I think that the big question is where does homosexuality come from, if we could determine this then it would probably be easier to understand why the Church feels the way it does and how we could reconcile the Church's view with reason. So this brings up many theories that people have adopted to explain it; on the extremely liberal side there are people who believe that you are born homosexual just as other people are born heterosexual, and there are Freudians who believe that you are born bi-sexual but later psychology determines your sexual identity, and then there are those who are really Conservative who think that homosexuality is entirely a choice. So which answer is it? The first belief seems kind of scientifically inaccurate to me because I've read science articles before which stated that infants have a natural sexual attraction to the parent of the opposite gender, something to do with survival instinct. So the theory of being born that way seems unlikely to me, although I could be wrong. I also do not think it can be rooted in evolution either as some people say, because the goal of evolution is adaptability to make reproduction easier, and homosexuals cannot reproduce, so how could evolution produce that? On the other side of the spectrum, I also do not think that people can really 'choose' to be homosexual anymore than I chose to be heterosexual because people cannot just choose to be sexually attracted to something. So, while it may be outdated, the Freudian or at least any psychological views have really interested me. Are there any good theories about homosexuality and psychology that can be rooted in evidence? I know that the American Psychology Association or something classified homosexuality as a psychological condition in the past, and that the only reason they took it out was because of protestors who pressured them. Is it possible that say as a small child or during adolescence when hormones are going crazy and your sexuality is developing that certain events could have had a psychological effect on a person and in turn influenced their sexuality?

I am not sure but I seem to recall an article I read earlier this year, which told about an experiment in which a group of of homosexual people had their brains compared with those of heterosexuals. It was revealed that the brains belonging to the homosexuals were similar to female brains which could indicate a biological difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. However this theory might be flawed since I have also heard about homosexuals who, later in life have becomed heterosexuals. No matter what, this is definately an interesting question.

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

The most likely answer is that it is a combination of pre-natal factors, genetic pre-disposition, and post-natal environmental factors.

However, the "Why?" question has nothing to do with the "What should they do?" question.

Very true! Two totally different questions and discussions.

As far as the Church is concerned, homosexual acts are sinful. Homosexuals who do not engage and participate in homosexual acts are not, as far as that in and of itself is concerned, sinning. And then there's the exhortation that we should "hate the sin, and love the sinner."

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

everybody struggles with different sins. I had a friend who was a klepto and always tried to steal things. (not from me, but from stores and stuff. never with me either. i never wanted to get busted for that.) some people struggle with homosexuality too. its tough in our culture because everyone says its ok.

i might actually recommend this more than the podcast. i thought this was helpful....

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

I still think the idea that homosexuals are "different" than heterosexuals is bogus, from both a sociological and theological viewpoint. Sociologically, it fails to address cultures where what we would describe as "bisexuality" as the norm. Look at the Greeks and Romans. Did they all have "female brains"? Same sexual encounters were widespread, but these same men were usually able to maintain sexual relationships with females as well. I think the idea that homosexuals are biologically different will go the way of miscegenation. People are people and there is one concrete truth regarding humans - we will have sex with just about anything that won't kill us in the process, and even then, some will try.

From a religious viewpoint, I see homosexuality as a temptation. Perhaps some are more susceptible than others, but this is not a matter of some people being superior to others, it's just a matter of the adversary being an opportunist. he will strike wherever he see's a chance of success. There are many reasons why some people would succumb to homosexuality that have nothing to be with brain chemistry. What about prison sex? I don't think everyone engaging in this is a homosexual, it's a question of availability. The temptation is there, the female is not.

Now go ahead and flame me, my fire retardant coating has been applied!

I still think the idea that homosexuals are "different" than heterosexuals is bogus, from both a sociological and theological viewpoint. Sociologically, it fails to address cultures where what we would describe as "bisexuality" as the norm. Look at the Greeks and Romans. Did they all have "female brains"? Same sexual encounters were widespread, but these same men were usually able to maintain sexual relationships with females as well. I think the idea that homosexuals are biologically different will go the way of miscegenation. People are people and there is one concrete truth regarding humans - we will have sex with just about anything that won't kill us in the process, and even then, some will try.

From a religious viewpoint, I see homosexuality as a temptation. Perhaps some are more susceptible than others, but this is not a matter of some people being superior to others, it's just a matter of the adversary being an opportunist. he will strike wherever he see's a chance of success. There are many reasons why some people would succumb to homosexuality that have nothing to be with brain chemistry. What about prison sex? I don't think everyone engaging in this is a homosexual, it's a question of availability. The temptation is there, the female is not.

Now go ahead and flame me, my fire retardant coating has been applied!

Fwiw, I agree with you.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I think the idea that homosexuals are biologically different will go the way of miscegenation.

Actually there is at least some biological element. Studies show that the more male children a woman has, the more likely one of them will be homosexual. The reason for this being prenatal factors affecting the development of the child, like excess estrogen or something.

I think the idea that homosexuals are biologically different will go the way of miscegenation.

Actually there is at least some biological element. Studies show that the more male children a woman has, the more likely one of them will be homosexual. The reason for this being prenatal factors affecting the development of the child, like excess estrogen or something.

Or because the more males you have in any context, the higher the probability that at least one of them will identify as gay?It's like the more male children woman has, the more likely one of them will have a birthday in March.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

I think the idea that homosexuals are biologically different will go the way of miscegenation.

Actually there is at least some biological element. Studies show that the more male children a woman has, the more likely one of them will be homosexual. The reason for this being prenatal factors affecting the development of the child, like excess estrogen or something.

Studies show many, many things. Depending on the methodolgy used, the biases inbuilt, who is paying for the study, and a host of other variables, many studies are just not worth the paper the results are printed on. I'm not saying that the ones you're referring to (just which ones are those, anyway??) are bad, just that one has to be very careful about them. You know the old saying about statistics and lies/liars, don't you?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

The reason for this being prenatal factors affecting the development of the child, like excess estrogen or something.

OMG I just realised something. Estrogen. Soy Milk. Homosexuality. Don't you people get it? The Soy Milk industry is probably funded by the homosexual agenda people as a way of producing more gay people by increasing the amount of estrogen in women! Gays can't produce their own through the natural use of sexual organs, so they have found a way to work around that!

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

I think the idea that homosexuals are biologically different will go the way of miscegenation.

Actually there is at least some biological element. Studies show that the more male children a woman has, the more likely one of them will be homosexual. The reason for this being prenatal factors affecting the development of the child, like excess estrogen or something.

My grandma used to tell me, based on scientific studies, that if I played with myself my hands would turn black.

The reason for this being prenatal factors affecting the development of the child, like excess estrogen or something.

OMG I just realised something. Estrogen. Soy Milk. Homosexuality. Don't you people get it? The Soy Milk industry is probably funded by the homosexual agenda people as a way of producing more gay people by increasing the amount of estrogen in women! Gays can't produce their own through the natural use of sexual organs, so they have found a way to work around that!

I think the idea that homosexuals are biologically different will go the way of miscegenation.

Actually there is at least some biological element. Studies show that the more male children a woman has, the more likely one of them will be homosexual. The reason for this being prenatal factors affecting the development of the child, like excess estrogen or something.

My grandma used to tell me, based on scientific studies, that if I played with myself my hands would turn black.

So...what happened?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I think the idea that homosexuals are biologically different will go the way of miscegenation.

Actually there is at least some biological element. Studies show that the more male children a woman has, the more likely one of them will be homosexual. The reason for this being prenatal factors affecting the development of the child, like excess estrogen or something.

My grandma used to tell me, based on scientific studies, that if I played with myself my hands would turn black.

I think the idea that homosexuals are biologically different will go the way of miscegenation.

Actually there is at least some biological element. Studies show that the more male children a woman has, the more likely one of them will be homosexual. The reason for this being prenatal factors affecting the development of the child, like excess estrogen or something.

My grandma used to tell me, based on scientific studies, that if I played with myself my hands would turn black.

So...what happened?

I found this assertion to be patently false.

I guess you didn't go blind, either, as you are able to report the falsehood of her assertion. Unless, of course, you *did* go blind and someone else told you your hands didn't turn black.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I have been having a lot of trouble understanding the Church's position on homosexuality, how we prohibit marriage or sexual relations between them. I think that the big question is where does homosexuality come from, if we could determine this then it would probably be easier to understand why the Church feels the way it does and how we could reconcile the Church's view with reason. So this brings up many theories that people have adopted to explain it; on the extremely liberal side there are people who believe that you are born homosexual just as other people are born heterosexual, and there are Freudians who believe that you are born bi-sexual but later psychology determines your sexual identity, and then there are those who are really Conservative who think that homosexuality is entirely a choice. So which answer is it? The first belief seems kind of scientifically inaccurate to me because I've read science articles before which stated that infants have a natural sexual attraction to the parent of the opposite gender, something to do with survival instinct. So the theory of being born that way seems unlikely to me, although I could be wrong. I also do not think it can be rooted in evolution either as some people say, because the goal of evolution is adaptability to make reproduction easier, and homosexuals cannot reproduce, so how could evolution produce that? On the other side of the spectrum, I also do not think that people can really 'choose' to be homosexual anymore than I chose to be heterosexual because people cannot just choose to be sexually attracted to something. So, while it may be outdated, the Freudian or at least any psychological views have really interested me. Are there any good theories about homosexuality and psychology that can be rooted in evidence? I know that the American Psychology Association or something classified homosexuality as a psychological condition in the past, and that the only reason they took it out was because of protestors who pressured them. Is it possible that say as a small child or during adolescence when hormones are going crazy and your sexuality is developing that certain events could have had a psychological effect on a person and in turn influenced their sexuality?

Homosexuality is outright perversion. It's an abomination. The Jews were even instructed by God to put them to death. Our Lord through his 2nd covenant, taught us to now condemn the sin, but not cast the first stone.

It is perversion, and I personally don't believe people are born homosexual. I believe there are influences in their lives that make them that way. Sexual abuse, without a good male role model, etc.

I have been having a lot of trouble understanding the Church's position on homosexuality, how we prohibit marriage or sexual relations between them. I think that the big question is where does homosexuality come from, if we could determine this then it would probably be easier to understand why the Church feels the way it does and how we could reconcile the Church's view with reason. So this brings up many theories that people have adopted to explain it; on the extremely liberal side there are people who believe that you are born homosexual just as other people are born heterosexual, and there are Freudians who believe that you are born bi-sexual but later psychology determines your sexual identity, and then there are those who are really Conservative who think that homosexuality is entirely a choice. So which answer is it? The first belief seems kind of scientifically inaccurate to me because I've read science articles before which stated that infants have a natural sexual attraction to the parent of the opposite gender, something to do with survival instinct. So the theory of being born that way seems unlikely to me, although I could be wrong. I also do not think it can be rooted in evolution either as some people say, because the goal of evolution is adaptability to make reproduction easier, and homosexuals cannot reproduce, so how could evolution produce that? On the other side of the spectrum, I also do not think that people can really 'choose' to be homosexual anymore than I chose to be heterosexual because people cannot just choose to be sexually attracted to something. So, while it may be outdated, the Freudian or at least any psychological views have really interested me. Are there any good theories about homosexuality and psychology that can be rooted in evidence? I know that the American Psychology Association or something classified homosexuality as a psychological condition in the past, and that the only reason they took it out was because of protestors who pressured them. Is it possible that say as a small child or during adolescence when hormones are going crazy and your sexuality is developing that certain events could have had a psychological effect on a person and in turn influenced their sexuality?

Homosexuality is outright perversion. It's an abomination. The Jews were even instructed by God to put them to death. Our Lord through his 2nd covenant, taught us to now condemn the sin, but not cast the first stone.

It is perversion, and I personally don't believe people are born homosexual. I believe there are influences in their lives that make them that way. Sexual abuse, without a good male role model, etc.

God had already changed a lot of his views by the time when NT was written. It's sensible to assume that He has changed even more of his views after that too.

I have been having a lot of trouble understanding the Church's position on homosexuality, how we prohibit marriage or sexual relations between them. I think that the big question is where does homosexuality come from, if we could determine this then it would probably be easier to understand why the Church feels the way it does and how we could reconcile the Church's view with reason. So this brings up many theories that people have adopted to explain it; on the extremely liberal side there are people who believe that you are born homosexual just as other people are born heterosexual, and there are Freudians who believe that you are born bi-sexual but later psychology determines your sexual identity, and then there are those who are really Conservative who think that homosexuality is entirely a choice. So which answer is it? The first belief seems kind of scientifically inaccurate to me because I've read science articles before which stated that infants have a natural sexual attraction to the parent of the opposite gender, something to do with survival instinct. So the theory of being born that way seems unlikely to me, although I could be wrong. I also do not think it can be rooted in evolution either as some people say, because the goal of evolution is adaptability to make reproduction easier, and homosexuals cannot reproduce, so how could evolution produce that? On the other side of the spectrum, I also do not think that people can really 'choose' to be homosexual anymore than I chose to be heterosexual because people cannot just choose to be sexually attracted to something. So, while it may be outdated, the Freudian or at least any psychological views have really interested me. Are there any good theories about homosexuality and psychology that can be rooted in evidence? I know that the American Psychology Association or something classified homosexuality as a psychological condition in the past, and that the only reason they took it out was because of protestors who pressured them. Is it possible that say as a small child or during adolescence when hormones are going crazy and your sexuality is developing that certain events could have had a psychological effect on a person and in turn influenced their sexuality?

Homosexuality is outright perversion. It's an abomination. The Jews were even instructed by God to put them to death. Our Lord through his 2nd covenant, taught us to now condemn the sin, but not cast the first stone.

It is perversion, and I personally don't believe people are born homosexual. I believe there are influences in their lives that make them that way. Sexual abuse, without a good male role model, etc.

Have you ever put your money in a bank, eaten something from the seas or rivers without fins our scales, or pet a dog? If so, you too have committed acts which are also listed in the Old Testament as abominations. Yet I have never seen you speak out against the abominable nature of petting a dog or eating catfish. Why is that? Do you feel capable of picking and choosing which one of God's old testament laws are more important than the others?

Why do you feel so comfortable quoting the law, knowing that the law has in some sense been dispensed, because though the revelation of Christ, we have come to understand the true purpose of the law and therefore no longer need the law? I do not agree with practicing homosexuality. This is because we are taught that sexual union is to occur only within the confines of a marriage, and the Church has never married homosexual couples. But I cannot agree with your approach to this matter because I find it absolutely base and boorish for you to quote the law which is no longer in effect in order to support your position.

« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 02:54:46 AM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

However, the "Why?" question has nothing to do with the "What should they do?" question.

what do you mean the why doesn't matter? If you don't know what is causing your body to be formed the way it is formed. How can you know what you should do? By the way. This issue has nothing to do with me. But I am interested in the topic. Because I want to understand, really understand people, instead of just call it a sin, and end the conversation there.

The most likely answer is that it is a combination of pre-natal factors, genetic pre-disposition, and post-natal environmental factors.

However, the "Why?" question has nothing to do with the "What should they do?" question.

Very true! Two totally different questions and discussions.

As far as the Church is concerned, homosexual acts are sinful. Homosexuals who do not engage and participate in homosexual acts are not, as far as that in and of itself is concerned, sinning. And then there's the exhortation that we should "hate the sin, and love the sinner."

everybody struggles with different sins. I had a friend who was a klepto and always tried to steal things. (not from me, but from stores and stuff. never with me either. i never wanted to get busted for that.) some people struggle with homosexuality too. its tough in our culture because everyone says its ok.

i might actually recommend this more than the podcast. i thought this was helpful....

what do you mean everyone says homosexuality is ok? The majority of people says it's not ok, and this has driven many people to despair and to suicide. Because our society is judging others instead of minding their own business and looking at their own sins.

I have been having a lot of trouble understanding the Church's position on homosexuality, how we prohibit marriage or sexual relations between them. I think that the big question is where does homosexuality come from, if we could determine this then it would probably be easier to understand why the Church feels the way it does and how we could reconcile the Church's view with reason. So this brings up many theories that people have adopted to explain it; on the extremely liberal side there are people who believe that you are born homosexual just as other people are born heterosexual, and there are Freudians who believe that you are born bi-sexual but later psychology determines your sexual identity, and then there are those who are really Conservative who think that homosexuality is entirely a choice. So which answer is it? The first belief seems kind of scientifically inaccurate to me because I've read science articles before which stated that infants have a natural sexual attraction to the parent of the opposite gender, something to do with survival instinct. So the theory of being born that way seems unlikely to me, although I could be wrong. I also do not think it can be rooted in evolution either as some people say, because the goal of evolution is adaptability to make reproduction easier, and homosexuals cannot reproduce, so how could evolution produce that? On the other side of the spectrum, I also do not think that people can really 'choose' to be homosexual anymore than I chose to be heterosexual because people cannot just choose to be sexually attracted to something. So, while it may be outdated, the Freudian or at least any psychological views have really interested me. Are there any good theories about homosexuality and psychology that can be rooted in evidence? I know that the American Psychology Association or something classified homosexuality as a psychological condition in the past, and that the only reason they took it out was because of protestors who pressured them. Is it possible that say as a small child or during adolescence when hormones are going crazy and your sexuality is developing that certain events could have had a psychological effect on a person and in turn influenced their sexuality?

Homosexuality is outright perversion. It's an abomination. The Jews were even instructed by God to put them to death. Our Lord through his 2nd covenant, taught us to now condemn the sin, but not cast the first stone.

It is perversion, and I personally don't believe people are born homosexual. I believe there are influences in their lives that make them that way. Sexual abuse, without a good male role model, etc.

Have you ever put your money in a bank, eaten something from the seas or rivers without fins our scales, or pet a dog? If so, you too have committed acts which are also listed in the Old Testament as abominations. Yet I have never seen you speak out against the abominable nature of petting a dog or eating catfish. Why is that? Do you feel capable of picking and choosing which one of God's old testament laws are more important than the others?

Why do you feel so comfortable quoting the law, knowing that the law has in some sense been dispensed, because though the revelation of Christ, we have come to understand the true purpose of the law and therefore no longer need the law? I do not agree with practicing homosexuality. This is because we are taught that sexual union is to occur only within the confines of a marriage, and the Church has never married homosexual couples. But I cannot agree with your approach to this matter because I find it absolutely base and boorish for you to quote the law which is no longer in effect in order to support your position.

abominable nature of petting a dog. What? then I am doomed cause I let my dog kiss me too. Not on the mouth of course, because it's disgusting. But when I kiss him, I kiss on the lips sometimes.

I have been having a lot of trouble understanding the Church's position on homosexuality, how we prohibit marriage or sexual relations between them. I think that the big question is where does homosexuality come from, if we could determine this then it would probably be easier to understand why the Church feels the way it does and how we could reconcile the Church's view with reason. So this brings up many theories that people have adopted to explain it; on the extremely liberal side there are people who believe that you are born homosexual just as other people are born heterosexual, and there are Freudians who believe that you are born bi-sexual but later psychology determines your sexual identity, and then there are those who are really Conservative who think that homosexuality is entirely a choice. So which answer is it? The first belief seems kind of scientifically inaccurate to me because I've read science articles before which stated that infants have a natural sexual attraction to the parent of the opposite gender, something to do with survival instinct. So the theory of being born that way seems unlikely to me, although I could be wrong. I also do not think it can be rooted in evolution either as some people say, because the goal of evolution is adaptability to make reproduction easier, and homosexuals cannot reproduce, so how could evolution produce that? On the other side of the spectrum, I also do not think that people can really 'choose' to be homosexual anymore than I chose to be heterosexual because people cannot just choose to be sexually attracted to something. So, while it may be outdated, the Freudian or at least any psychological views have really interested me. Are there any good theories about homosexuality and psychology that can be rooted in evidence? I know that the American Psychology Association or something classified homosexuality as a psychological condition in the past, and that the only reason they took it out was because of protestors who pressured them. Is it possible that say as a small child or during adolescence when hormones are going crazy and your sexuality is developing that certain events could have had a psychological effect on a person and in turn influenced their sexuality?

Homosexuality is outright perversion. It's an abomination. The Jews were even instructed by God to put them to death. Our Lord through his 2nd covenant, taught us to now condemn the sin, but not cast the first stone.

It is perversion, and I personally don't believe people are born homosexual. I believe there are influences in their lives that make them that way. Sexual abuse, without a good male role model, etc.

Have you ever put your money in a bank, eaten something from the seas or rivers without fins our scales, or pet a dog? If so, you too have committed acts which are also listed in the Old Testament as abominations. Yet I have never seen you speak out against the abominable nature of petting a dog or eating catfish. Why is that? Do you feel capable of picking and choosing which one of God's old testament laws are more important than the others?

Why do you feel so comfortable quoting the law, knowing that the law has in some sense been dispensed, because though the revelation of Christ, we have come to understand the true purpose of the law and therefore no longer need the law? I do not agree with practicing homosexuality. This is because we are taught that sexual union is to occur only within the confines of a marriage, and the Church has never married homosexual couples. But I cannot agree with your approach to this matter because I find it absolutely base and boorish for you to quote the law which is no longer in effect in order to support your position.

abominable nature of petting a dog. What? then I am doomed cause I let my dog kiss me too. Not on the mouth of course, because it's disgusting. But when I kiss him, I kiss on the lips sometimes.

You dog kisser!!!! You invoke wrath upon yourself and you will surely burn unto ages of ages!!!!!!!

I have been having a lot of trouble understanding the Church's position on homosexuality, how we prohibit marriage or sexual relations between them. I think that the big question is where does homosexuality come from, if we could determine this then it would probably be easier to understand why the Church feels the way it does and how we could reconcile the Church's view with reason. So this brings up many theories that people have adopted to explain it; on the extremely liberal side there are people who believe that you are born homosexual just as other people are born heterosexual, and there are Freudians who believe that you are born bi-sexual but later psychology determines your sexual identity, and then there are those who are really Conservative who think that homosexuality is entirely a choice. So which answer is it? The first belief seems kind of scientifically inaccurate to me because I've read science articles before which stated that infants have a natural sexual attraction to the parent of the opposite gender, something to do with survival instinct. So the theory of being born that way seems unlikely to me, although I could be wrong. I also do not think it can be rooted in evolution either as some people say, because the goal of evolution is adaptability to make reproduction easier, and homosexuals cannot reproduce, so how could evolution produce that? On the other side of the spectrum, I also do not think that people can really 'choose' to be homosexual anymore than I chose to be heterosexual because people cannot just choose to be sexually attracted to something. So, while it may be outdated, the Freudian or at least any psychological views have really interested me. Are there any good theories about homosexuality and psychology that can be rooted in evidence? I know that the American Psychology Association or something classified homosexuality as a psychological condition in the past, and that the only reason they took it out was because of protestors who pressured them. Is it possible that say as a small child or during adolescence when hormones are going crazy and your sexuality is developing that certain events could have had a psychological effect on a person and in turn influenced their sexuality?

Homosexuality is outright perversion. It's an abomination. The Jews were even instructed by God to put them to death. Our Lord through his 2nd covenant, taught us to now condemn the sin, but not cast the first stone.

It is perversion, and I personally don't believe people are born homosexual. I believe there are influences in their lives that make them that way. Sexual abuse, without a good male role model, etc.

Have you ever put your money in a bank, eaten something from the seas or rivers without fins our scales, or pet a dog? If so, you too have committed acts which are also listed in the Old Testament as abominations. Yet I have never seen you speak out against the abominable nature of petting a dog or eating catfish. Why is that? Do you feel capable of picking and choosing which one of God's old testament laws are more important than the others?

Why do you feel so comfortable quoting the law, knowing that the law has in some sense been dispensed, because though the revelation of Christ, we have come to understand the true purpose of the law and therefore no longer need the law? I do not agree with practicing homosexuality. This is because we are taught that sexual union is to occur only within the confines of a marriage, and the Church has never married homosexual couples. But I cannot agree with your approach to this matter because I find it absolutely base and boorish for you to quote the law which is no longer in effect in order to support your position.

abominable nature of petting a dog. What? then I am doomed cause I let my dog kiss me too. Not on the mouth of course, because it's disgusting. But when I kiss him, I kiss on the lips sometimes.

You dog kisser!!!! You invoke wrath upon yourself and you will surely burn unto ages of ages!!!!!!!

I think the idea that homosexuals are biologically different will go the way of miscegenation.

Actually there is at least some biological element. Studies show that the more male children a woman has, the more likely one of them will be homosexual. The reason for this being prenatal factors affecting the development of the child, like excess estrogen or something.

A couple points: if this were indeed a connection, then wouldn't the same be true for a woman that has many girls and lesbianism?

Also, I get really frustrated with the fact that people speaking of homosexuality seemingly forget that lesbians are indeed homosexuals too.